Why do farmers adopt conservation tillage? An ...

doi:10.2489/jswc.68.6.501

Why do farmers adopt conservation tillage? An experimental investigation of framing effects A.C. Andrews, R.A. Clawson, B.M. Gramig, and L. Raymond

Key words: climate change—conservation tillage—contrast effect—framing—no-till— survey-based experiment Framing effects are increasingly recognized as a critical influence over human decision making. By defining the scope of an issue and what considerations are most important in its evaluation, alternative frames can lead individuals to change their attitudes toward the framed issue (Entman 1993). Recent work in economics, political science, and sociology has confirmed the influence of frames on decision making in many contexts. In this paper, we investigate the role of framing in a new context: farmer decision making about conservation tillage practices potentially eligible for carbon (C)-offset credits. Investigation of framing effects in agricultural decision making has largely been limited to risk and uncertainty in production, with very recent research considering the role of framing in the devel-

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

opment of decision-support tools (McCown 2012). Although there is a substantial literature on farmer decision making regarding adoption of best management practices (BMPs) in general, none of this work examines the role of framing in shaping farmers’ attitudes toward conservation techniques, nor does it look at the factors shaping farmers’ decisions related to practices addressing the problem of climate change. There is good reason to think that frames should be important in shaping farmers’ attitudes toward conservation tillage, given the different arguments used to promote these techniques. Others have found evidence of an “intrinsic motivation for adoption of conservation practices” that differs in approach but is consistent with our framing study (Greiner et al. 2009). Further, economic pay-

Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68(6):501-511 www.swcs.org

Abstract: In this paper, framing effects are investigated in a new context: farmer decision making about conservation tillage practices. Primary hypotheses include the following: (1) frames (i.e., different arguments about or conceptions of an issue) portraying conservation tillage as “profitable” will generate more interest in the tillage technique among farmers than a control frame presenting only basic information; (2) frames discussing potential payments for “environmental benefits” will generate more positive attitudes than frames discussing payment for “storing carbon (C)” to limit climate change; and (3) framing effects will vary based on subjects’ prior beliefs and experiences. These hypotheses were tested using a survey-based experiment administered to a national sample of row-crop farmers. Contrary to expectations, the profit frame and both payment frames had no effect on farmers’ interest in conservation tillage across our entire sample. Consistent with the third hypothesis, however, a negative framing effect was found for the profit frame on nonadopters who reported no use of no-till in the past two years. These results support the argument regarding the importance of prior beliefs in reactions to frames. They also suggest the possibility of modest financial payments “crowding out” intrinsic motivations for contributions to public goods such as soil conservation. From a policy perspective, these findings also suggest the relative inefficacy of offers of modest conservation payments or profitability frames in promoting no-till farming, especially among nonadopters, and the need to find alternative frames that avoid reinforcing an argument that nonadopters appear to have already considered and rejected.

ments for C-offset credits have tended to be fairly small, making the influence of noneconomic factors, like framing, more likely. Our initial expectation was that framed treatments describing the greater profitability of conservation tillage would generate greater interest in these techniques than treatments including only a control frame describing the basic rationale (i.e., improved soil tilth, reduced erosion, and improved water quality) for the practice. In addition, we expected that a frame promoting conservation tillage as an opportunity to generate C-offset revenue would be less influential than a frame promoting the potential for payments for ecosystem services, due to a perceived skepticism among farmers about climate change. Finally, we expected framing responses to vary based on farmers’ prior beliefs and values related to conservation tillage. We tested these hypotheses through a large-scale experiment using a national sample of row-crop farmers. Our four-page survey instrument consisted of an experimental component promoting conservation tillage as well as standard demographic questions. The experimental treatments varied in terms of (1) a frame that portrayed conservation tillage as profitable versus a control frame that provided only a basic rationale for the practice and (2) whether the frames mentioned C-offset payment opportunities, payments for more general environmental benefits, or no payments at all. After presenting the frames, the instrument asked farmers how interested they were in learning more about conservation tillage and offered them a chance to request additional information and a referral to a local conservation advisor. We analyzed variation in farmers' interest in conservation tillage and their requests for more information to examine the impact of different frames on farmers' attitudes toward conservation tillage. Our results confirm the influence of framing in some cases but not others. Contrary to our expectations, we found little evidence of frames presenting C-offset or ecosystem services payments affecting interest in Amelia C. Andrews is graduate research assistant and Rosalee A. Clawson and Leigh Raymond are professors in the Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Benjamin M. Gramig is associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

NOV/DEC 2013—VOL. 68, NO. 6

501

502


2008). The motivation for the present study is the role that frames could play in stimulating farmer interest in, and ultimately adoption of, conservation tillage to supply emissions offsets to voluntary or regulatory emissions markets. According to one widely accepted model, frames alter the importance of considerations citizens use to construct an issue, in turn influencing attitudes toward the issue. Thus, according to the belief-importance model developed by Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997a), frames emphasize different beliefs or values and link them more strongly to an issue. The frame does not change the content of the audience member’s beliefs under this model, but rather elevates the importance of a particular set of beliefs with regard to a policy while diminishing the importance of others. The belief-importance model suggests that individuals engage in active processing of frames; individuals think about the frames they are exposed to and are able to accept or reject frames based on the content and characteristics of the frame. Substantial attention, therefore, has focused on the conditions under which frames are likely to have a greater or lesser effect on issue conception and attitude formation. For example, perceived credibility is often discussed as an important factor in the reception and acceptance of frames (Brewer 2001, 2002, 2003; Slothuus 2008). Framing effects are also conditioned by an individual’s preexisting beliefs. Beliefs and values act as a filter through which messages must pass for an individual to first receive and then judge the information (Feldman 1988; Slothuus 2008). Druckman notes audiences will grant greater levels of credibility based on factors such as ideology and belief structures (2001a, 2001b). Information sources perceived to be consistent with personal ideology or beliefs are viewed as more legitimate and therefore expected to have a stronger effect on an individual’s attitudes (Slothuus and de Vreese 2010). The significance of beliefs and values is recognized in the Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1984).This model of persuasion specifies the conditions under which individuals actively consider, process, and judge messages, such as frames. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, when motivation or ability is limited, individuals process information via a peripheral route in which they

rely on incidental cues rather than content to evaluate a frame. Where motivation and ability are present, however, individuals use a central processing route in which a careful consideration of frames occurs (Petty and Cacioppo 1984; Petty et al. 1988; Sagarin et al. 2002). In this case, individuals analyze the pros and cons of arguments contained within the frame and generate favorable or unfavorable thoughts based on the frame’s content. If more favorable thoughts are associated with the frame, individuals will be persuaded; if more unfavorable thoughts exist, individuals will have a higher propensity to resist the frame or even oppose the position supported by the frame (Petty and Cacioppo 1984; Petty et al. 1988; Sagarin et al. 2002). In sum, individuals are predisposed to analyze frames more or less favorably based on their preexisting beliefs and values. Some individuals may possess beliefs that make them more open to the frame's arguments, whereas others may react negatively to the frame due to dissonance between the message and prior beliefs. In both cases, the individuals may be thinking about the issue in terms consistent with the frame, but in the first instance, a framing effect will occur whereas in the second instance, a contrast effect will occur whereby individuals get pushed away from the position advocated by the frame. These contrast effects have received little attention within the framing literature. In measuring framing effects, scholars have relied on the elevation of considerations, asserting that when frames are able to influence an individual’s conception of an issue, the subsequent attitude change will be consistent with the frame. Thus, Nelson and Kinder (1996) note that “[e]lites wage a war of frames because they know if their frame becomes the dominant way of thinking about a particular problem, then the battle for public opinion has been won.” More recent scholarship has revealed, however, that the consistency of frames and attitudes cannot be assumed. For example, in an experiment examining the influence of gay rights frames, Brewer (2002) presented subjects with frames describing the issue in terms of morality (anti-gay rights), equality (pro-gay rights), or both. He found that individuals who used value language consistent with treatment frames in describing their opinion on gay rights did not necessarily hold attitudes consistent with those



conservation tillage. More surprisingly, we found the profit frame to have no effect on our sample overall, despite previous work suggesting this to be an important motivation for adoption of conservation techniques among farmers (Pannell et al. 2006). More consistent with our expectations, we found the profit frame had a negative effect on nonadopters in our sample who reported no use of no-till in the past two years. These results suggest the importance of prior beliefs in reactions to frames, as well as the possibility of a “contrast effect,” where a frame generates a response opposite to the intended message. They also suggest the potential for small material incentives to crowd out or reduce intrinsic motivations for considering adoption of a new behavior designed to provide a public good like soil conservation. From a policy perspective, these results suggest the relative inefficacy, among nonadopters, of offers of modest payments or profitability frames in promoting conservation tillage and the need to find “conflict-displacing” frames (Dardis et al. 2008) that avoid reinforcing an argument in favor of conservation tillage that nonadopters appear to have already considered and rejected. Our discussion proceeds in four parts. First, we review the literature on framing effects and attitude change, with particular attention to studies considering the role of prior beliefs. Next, we present our research design. Third, we review our results, including a brief review of our survey data regarding patterns of adoption of conservation tillage across the United States and reasons offered for adoption or nonadoption, as well as a more detailed look at our experimental framing results. Finally, we conclude with a few thoughts about the practical and theoretical implications of our findings and ideas for future research. Literature Review. Frames define the scope of an issue and what considerations are most important when evaluating an issue (Entman 1993). Nelson and Kinder (1996) define frames as “constructions of the issue: they spell out the essence of the problem, suggest how it should be thought about, and may go as far as to recommend what (if anything) should be done.” In a political context, elites frame messages to highlight particular aspects of a problem in an attempt to sway public opinion on an issue (Druckman and Nelson 2003; Entman 1993; Lee et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 1997a; Nelson et al. 1997b; Slothuus


A limited number of studies have considered the role of personal values and beliefs in shaping farmer or landowner conservation practices, and few of these studies have considered the role of framing. This research focuses on the influence of personal values and beliefs in shaping land management decisions in contrast to the body of work dealing exclusively with economic incentives (e.g., Brook et al. 2003; Erickson and De Young 1994; Jackson-Smith et al. 2005; Langpap 2004). A recent meta-analysis of factors predicting farmer adoption of BMPs did find that positive attitudes toward BMPs was the factor most frequently associated with adoption (Prokopy et al. 2008). Among the specific attitudes found to influence adoption was belief in the profitability of the particular practice. A second review of the literature also identified profitability together with the ability to test conservation practices before implementing on all acres as important for adoption (Pannell et al. 2006), while a third study confirmed the relevance of “practical knowledge and personal experience” in farmers’ adoption behavior (Vogel 1996). More generally, research has considered the interaction of material and intrinsic motivations to provide public goods, including studies that suggest the provision of material benefits for certain behaviors can weaken individual interest in performing those behaviors (Benabou and Tirole 2006; Frey and Oberholzer-Gee 1997; Titmuss 1970). This is sometimes referred to as material incentives “crowding out” intrinsic motivations and has been documented in programs providing financial incentives for prosocial environmental behavior (Kerr et al. 2012; Feldman and Perez 2012). There is no research we are aware of on factors predicting adoption motivated by climate change because farmers have had little opportunity to date to adopt BMPs specifically to address this issue. It is well established, however, that many members of the public express skepticism about climate change (Nisbet 2009; Nisbet and Mooney 2007), which may or may not influence farmer willingness to adopt practices designed to mitigate or adapt to change. Based on previous research on framing effects and the role of attitudes in shaping farmer adoption of BMPs, we generated the following basic hypotheses for our research: 1. Treatments using a profit frame to promote conservation tillage will generate

more interest in conservation tillage than treatments including only a control frame describing the basic rationale for the practice. 2. Treatments using frames promoting payments for C storage to address climate change will be less influential than those using frames promoting payments for environmental benefits. 3. Framing effects will vary significantly based on farmers’ prior beliefs and experiences related to conservation tillage. Materials and Methods The core of our research design was an experiment exposing full-time row-crop farmers to a variety of frames regarding conservation tillage. The treatment groups are presented in a 2 by 3 matrix in table 1. Subjects were first randomly assigned to two groups: those receiving the control frame versus those also receiving a profit frame. The control frame presented basic information describing conservation tillage and its positive effects on soil conditions, whereas the profit frame added a description of how conservation tillage could enhance a farmer’s profits by lowering labor, fuel, and machinery costs and also highlighted the potential for equal or higher crop yields. Again using random assignment, the control and treatment groups were further divided into three equal groups determining exposure to frames regarding the potential for payments to farmers using conservation tillage. One group received no mention of payments. The second group was exposed to a frame introducing the possibility of a modest C-offset payment for using certain types of conservation tillage. The treatment in the third group introduced the same payment in terms of providing environmental benefits. The wording of frames follows: 1. Control frame (basic rationale): Conservation tillage is a system of crop production that leaves a significant amount of residue from the previous crop on the field surface through the planting of the next crop. By limiting tillage operations and residue burial, organic matter in the soil may increase over time. Increasing organic matter improves soil tilth and ultimately may increase soil productivity. Less soil disturbance may also reduce soil erosion and improve water quality. In contrast, multiple tillage trips



frames. Rather, some subjects borrowed the frame’s value language in the expression of their “alternative interpretations” of the issue (Brewer 2002). This suggests that the frame was successful in elevating the relevant considerations but not necessarily in changing attitudes in the desired direction. By challenging an individual’s existing beliefs, a frame can push the recipient’s opinion in the opposite of the intended direction, creating a contrast effect. Slothuus and de Vreese (2010) found these contrast effects in an experimental context where politically aware individuals were presented with frames sponsored by an opposing political party. Based on a model of motivated reasoning, they argue that individuals are more likely to challenge information presented in a frame promoted by an opposing party, especially if they are highly politically aware and if the issue is partisan. As a result, exposure to a frame designed to increase support for a given policy sometimes led to a weakening of support. In another important study, Dardis and his coauthors (2008) introduced the distinction between conflict-reinforcing and conflict-displacing frames. They posit that frames will be ineffective when attitude conformity requires the audience to abandon or change their prior beliefs. These frames are referred to as conflict reinforcing because they call attention to the inconsistency between the beliefs and values supported by the frame and those held by some members of the audience. Conflict-displacing frames, by contrast, introduce new information and a new perspective on the issue that may alter the opinion of both supporters and opponents without requiring them to abandon core beliefs and values. This reframing of the issue asks individuals to evaluate the issue according to different beliefs than they had been previously using, making attitude change easier (Dardis et al. 2008). For example, in a recent study of climate change attitudes, climate change deniers indicated they were more likely to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors when climate change mitigation was linked with improving society or the economy than when it was framed as reducing C emissions (Bain et al. 2012). Similarly, Lockwood (2011) showed that support for expanding renewable energy was higher when it was framed as a way to achieve energy security rather than reduce climate change.

503

Table 1 Treatment matrix. Frame

No mention of payments

Carbon (C) offset payment

Payment for environmental services (PES)

Control frame (basic rationale) Profit frame

Control frame only Control + profit frames

Control + C offset frames Control + profit + C offset frames

Control + PES frames Control + profit + PES frames

504


Gillespie 2007; Schulz and Tonsor 2010). We expect that Farm Journal subscribers will, on average, have larger acreage farms than the agricultural census data because only farmers with 40 ha (100 ac) or more of crops qualify for a subscription. Furthermore, we limited our sample to subscribers with farms larger than 100 ha (250 ac), in order to exclude those for whom farming is not a primary occupation, and sampled only row-crop (corn [Zea mays L.], soybeans [Glycine max L.], and wheat [Triticum aestivum L.]) farmers since the issue of conservation tillage is most pertinent in the cultivation of these crops. Given this sampling strategy, we see no apparent bias in our sample compared to full-time row-crop farmers nationwide. For example, when compared to national data from the USDA’s Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS 2007) and Agricultural Resource Management Survey (USDA ARMS 2013), our sample reflects the fact that we have eliminated farms smaller than 100 ha (250 ac) from our sample and the geographical concentration of row crop farmers in the Corn Belt, Northern Plains, and Lake States (table 2). Although it is conceivable that Farm Journal subscribers adopt new technologies at a higher rate than the overall farm population, we find similar overall rates of adoption of different tillage practices in our sample compared to the most recent national USDA data (table 3), with higher adoption of reduced tillage practices on corn acres and higher use of conventional tillage on soybean and corn acres. Our random assignment of subjects to the six treatment groups resulted in approximately 1,000 subjects in each group. We presented our frames in a text box on the first page of the instrument. Subjects were asked to read the information in the box and then to answer a question about their degree of interest in conservation tillage using a seven-point Likert-scale. Additionally, subjects were asked if they would like to receive additional, detailed information concerning conservation tillage techniques by mail, with the assurance that information provided would be a one-time mailing. Those who responded “yes” received a follow-up mailing with a referral to conservation specialists

in their area as well as more detailed information on conservation tillage techniques appropriate to the subject’s region. Both questions were designed to measure farmer attitudes toward conservation tillage. By using these questions as dependent variables, we were able to compare levels of interest in conservation tillage across treatment groups as a test of framing effects. In addition to the experimental treatments, we also asked subjects to complete the grid depicted in figure 1 to report their current tillage practices and to indicate the importance of different factors in choosing those techniques on subsequent pages of the instrument. This survey portion of our instrument served three purposes. First, it allowed us to measure patterns in adoption of conservation tillage techniques nationally across different types of farmers. Second, it allowed us to measure the self-reported influence of different considerations on farmers’ recent adoption decisions. Finally, the survey provided some basic demographic data on our respondents. In fulfilling these functions, the survey allowed us to collect national information on conservation tillage adoption using the decision maker as the unit of analysis as opposed to land area, the default for many “windshield” surveys and other studies focused on aggregate conservation tillage adoption. The information also allowed us to test for interactions between various decision-maker characteristics and any framing effects from the experimental portion of the instrument. We pilot tested initial versions of the instrument on a sample of 36 undergraduate agricultural economics students as well as a focus group of 5 farmers in west central Indiana. After these pilot sessions, we made modest revisions to the design of the instrument and then administered the instrument via US Mail, generally following Dillman’s (2007) method. Subjects received up to a total of five mailings: an introductory letter in January of 2011, followed by an initial printed survey, a reminder postcard, and two more print versions of the instrument. All mailings were completed by mid-April of 2011 in order to limit overlap with spring planting.



leave little residue, decrease organic matter, and increase soil erosion potential. 2. Profit frame: Conservation tillage can save farmers money by reducing labor, equipment costs, and fuel use. Although some farmers experience a small initial drop in yield for certain crops, many achieve similar yields with conservation tillage as with conventional tillage over time and may even increase yields in drier years. Thus, by lowering costs while maintaining yields, conservation tillage can increase a farmer’s profits. 3. Carbon offset frame: Depending on how little the soil is disturbed, conservation tillage stores additional C in the soil, helping to reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere linked to the problem of climate change. In some cases, farmers are able to get paid for this stored C through market exchanges, just as they are paid for supplying any other commodity. 4. Payment for environmental benefits frame: Conservation tillage provides numerous environmental benefits to society. In some cases, farmers are able to get paid for providing these environmental benefits through market exchanges, just as they are paid for supplying any other commodity. We generated our treatment frames through a series of interviews in the fall of 2010. We interviewed 18 farmers as well as 6 certified crop advisors and 2 conservation specialists from a sample of convenience in Indiana using a semistructured instrument that asked open-ended questions about decisions to use different tillage techniques. Interviews were conducted both in person and by phone and lasted from 20 to 60 minutes in length. We implemented our framing experiment through a written instrument sent by US Mail to 6,000 farmers across the 48 contiguous United States in the spring of 2011. Our sample was drawn at random from the mailing list of subscribers to Farm Journal, a popular national publication typical of the kinds of agricultural trade magazines whose subscriber lists have been used as list frames for national farmer surveys (Davis and

Table 2 Comparison of respondent and USDA population demographics (USDA NASS 2007).

USDA National Agricultural Census data

Demographic

All row crops*

Respondents

Entire sampling frame

Corn

Soybeans

Wheat

Table 3 Comparison of most recent national data from USDA to respondent tillage practices (in thousands of hectares).

USDA ARMS 2010

USDA ARMS 2006

USDA ARMS 2009

Percentage Percentage Percentage Tillage practice Corn land (%) Soybean land (%) Wheat land (%) No-till Ridge till Mulch till Reduced tillage (15 to 30% residue) Conventional tillage (